Qantas jets in near collision
I am surprised Katter was actually awake and looking out the window.
In the 12 months or so that I flew him around, I've lost count of how many times I would park out front of terminal, open back door only to have him nearly fall onto bitumen as he would be resting head on door.
Also he never seemed to care about his beloved Charters Towers Airport, when we used to have to dodge the roos on take-off and landing.
In the 12 months or so that I flew him around, I've lost count of how many times I would park out front of terminal, open back door only to have him nearly fall onto bitumen as he would be resting head on door.
Also he never seemed to care about his beloved Charters Towers Airport, when we used to have to dodge the roos on take-off and landing.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terror in the skies!!!
Perhaps poor old Bob produced produced a nasty Hershey squirt when the pilot "switched the throttle on".
Maybe he should produce the soiled article on A Current Affair to confirm that there was indeed panic on board.
Perhaps poor old Bob produced produced a nasty Hershey squirt when the pilot "switched the throttle on".
Maybe he should produce the soiled article on A Current Affair to confirm that there was indeed panic on board.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point taken DirectAnywhere, I just wonder why the decision to go around was left so late - of course it's probibly just that expert reporting again. A missed approach in itself is obiously no big deal unless there are extenuating circumstances. I can think of one incident where a B737 crew elected to land with a departing HS748 still to get airborne (same rwy) after a conditional landing clearance was issued - the tower (realising the impending stuff-up) instructed the 73 to go around, the Boeing captain decided to land as he deamed this to be a safer option than the go around and resulting seperation issues. Granted, the situation in Brisbane was much more straight forward.
Further to Pual Martin's post, at many airports in countries like France and USA you may be cleared to land with other aircraft to use not only your runway, but a crossing runway before you eg. KSFO. I accept that the pilots involved in this instance had no other option - so I agree with Paul that perhaps a mordernisation of the rules is required. This is just my opinion - some people may think that this sort of discretion could create more of a problem?
What do others think?
Further to Pual Martin's post, at many airports in countries like France and USA you may be cleared to land with other aircraft to use not only your runway, but a crossing runway before you eg. KSFO. I accept that the pilots involved in this instance had no other option - so I agree with Paul that perhaps a mordernisation of the rules is required. This is just my opinion - some people may think that this sort of discretion could create more of a problem?
What do others think?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think it really matters here, Clouds. That they went 'round was a captains decision, he made it and that makes it right. I reckon it happens probably once every few days in Aussie, but this time it had to have Swan and Katter on board.
And this was a simple opportunity for the d1ckheads to get their ugly mugs on TV. Or perhaps as Cactus has said, Katter doesn't like QF and they don't like him. This was a great opportunity for him to get a little back.....
And this was a simple opportunity for the d1ckheads to get their ugly mugs on TV. Or perhaps as Cactus has said, Katter doesn't like QF and they don't like him. This was a great opportunity for him to get a little back.....
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have seen a similar situation.
The folks in the tower were so desparate to avoid filing an incident report they shone the green light
Bob Katter......
Ever notice how those big hats have nothing in them?
The folks in the tower were so desparate to avoid filing an incident report they shone the green light
Bob Katter......
Ever notice how those big hats have nothing in them?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
Go around BN
Whats going on here? I cant beleive all the fuss over this incident!! I was on the aircraft involved, in fact just a row in front of Bob, and the only thing he seemed concerned with was his connecting flight once we lgot out in the terminal! I know the media beats up, but this is outrageous! I mean I don't know the facts, except a go - around was performed after the power was off during the flare, which granted is late, but it was performed smoothly, normal circuit followed by a normal landing. The F/O described it as a go - around due to an a/c on the runway, I dont see why he would lie about it and thats it. Never thought anything else about it! Except Low and behold reading papers today I was involved in a near CATASTROPHE! What the hell? I have no comment, the newspapers are just ridiculous! and the poli's on board, jes, get a life you dic$heads!!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not too sure where Cloud Cutter and Paul Martin are coming from...but I am sure it's from a position of ignorance in respect to the rules and regs in OZ.
If you land without a clearance from ATC in OZ you can probably kiss goodbye to your licence!
But Hey, if you want to try it, go for it!
If you land without a clearance from ATC in OZ you can probably kiss goodbye to your licence!
But Hey, if you want to try it, go for it!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amos2 that is exactly the point. In good old ANAL RETENTIVE Australia a pilot dare not exercise any command judgement as there is no room for common sense. They would have been reported before they got to the terminal. In many other parts of the world, this incident would not have happened as the guys would have just gone ahead and landed (as I have done). Rules are rules and we obviously obey them but lets not lose some sense of perspective.
I remember landing in Florence during the European league soccer on a Sat afternoon a few years ago. We called the tower numerous times with no response. The rwy was clear so we landed. After landing we called the tower again and the guy said callsign "cleared to land" with the soccer blaring in the background. We told him we had already landed so he said thank you and proceed to your bay. I must admit some Australian procedurally anal types would have gone around, all in the name of correctness???yeah right!!! Some times a little bit of lateral thinking can go a long way, thus negating the need for Mr Katter and his ilk to get his dial on national television mis-representing the facts.
I also understand trying to win this type of argument in this country is pretty much a waste of time, hence our reputation in other parts of the world.
I remember landing in Florence during the European league soccer on a Sat afternoon a few years ago. We called the tower numerous times with no response. The rwy was clear so we landed. After landing we called the tower again and the guy said callsign "cleared to land" with the soccer blaring in the background. We told him we had already landed so he said thank you and proceed to your bay. I must admit some Australian procedurally anal types would have gone around, all in the name of correctness???yeah right!!! Some times a little bit of lateral thinking can go a long way, thus negating the need for Mr Katter and his ilk to get his dial on national television mis-representing the facts.
I also understand trying to win this type of argument in this country is pretty much a waste of time, hence our reputation in other parts of the world.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez Paul, whilst your point is taken, you just gotta ask who is RIGHT?
Just because this dopey clown is watching the soccer doesn't mean the runway is actually clear, does it? I know the pilot can make some sort of a judgement, but there are so many what if's?
I don't beleve that just because there are people in the world who have "relaxed standards" that we should lower ours, simply because they sneer at us and call us anally retentive!
And BTW, I have flown throughout the world with both Australian carriers and others, and have never once come across the attitude you speak of.... Doesn't mean its not there, but then I don't care if it is...
And Mr Katter can get on TV all he likes, what goes around comes around.
Just because this dopey clown is watching the soccer doesn't mean the runway is actually clear, does it? I know the pilot can make some sort of a judgement, but there are so many what if's?
I don't beleve that just because there are people in the world who have "relaxed standards" that we should lower ours, simply because they sneer at us and call us anally retentive!
And BTW, I have flown throughout the world with both Australian carriers and others, and have never once come across the attitude you speak of.... Doesn't mean its not there, but then I don't care if it is...
And Mr Katter can get on TV all he likes, what goes around comes around.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Somewhere around 27degrees
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enough mental energy under Bob's big hat to toast a piece of bread...........lightly!
Ralph the Bong ..........love your work.
However technically correct and accurately written your article was, it brings to mind the following warning:
"As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions."
Are you sure you're not a member of our illustrious press????
On a different note, how close to the runway can one proceed without a landing clearance??? I had believed it to be 50'(a/c < 5700kg). I assume it's 35' or end of the runway for a/c > 5700.
Surely, with or without allowance for inertia, this would require "switching on the throttles" (gotta love that?) at 70-100' at least. In any case, well before the "rubber hitting the tarmac?"
Penny for your thoughts people.............or should email Bob and ask him??? Like
!
However technically correct and accurately written your article was, it brings to mind the following warning:
"As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions."
Are you sure you're not a member of our illustrious press????
On a different note, how close to the runway can one proceed without a landing clearance??? I had believed it to be 50'(a/c < 5700kg). I assume it's 35' or end of the runway for a/c > 5700.
Surely, with or without allowance for inertia, this would require "switching on the throttles" (gotta love that?) at 70-100' at least. In any case, well before the "rubber hitting the tarmac?"
Penny for your thoughts people.............or should email Bob and ask him??? Like
!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was just going to say the same thing.
Bit of 'cultural cringe' there, Paul?
The culture in oz is not so 'lassez faire', that doesn't make it wrong or less enlightened. How clever would the captain look after he cleaned up the runway inspector, or the MWT? That is why there are rules. Whilst the capt. is able to use his judgement/discretion, was all the information at his disposal in those few seconds before the decision was required? Better to go around and think about it, IMHO.
As for the journalism....
Bit of 'cultural cringe' there, Paul?
The culture in oz is not so 'lassez faire', that doesn't make it wrong or less enlightened. How clever would the captain look after he cleaned up the runway inspector, or the MWT? That is why there are rules. Whilst the capt. is able to use his judgement/discretion, was all the information at his disposal in those few seconds before the decision was required? Better to go around and think about it, IMHO.
As for the journalism....
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing Clearances
For those of you advocating landing without a clearance at an Australian airport, bear in mind this incident:
Subsequently, the crews of both the Dash and the 747 said they never looked for nor saw the light signals.
The 747 crew said they did not see the Dash on the runway and went around only because they didn't have a landing clearance.
Which makes being cleared to land when the runway is not clear and you are not #1 (a la USA and, apparently, CDG) aviation safety b u l l s h i t.
We were so close to a LA DC10/Metro tragedy ....
If our outdated procedures saved 300 people and two aircraft, then I for one am proud of and thankful for them. As, I suspect, are the two crews. And their pax, if they know about what nearly happened to them.
AA
- Conditions were IMC, weather fluctuating about the ILS minima - ie, sometimes it was below minima.
- A Dash8 was lined up 1/3 down the RWY after a preceding landing. A 747 was on final, on TWR freq.
- The Dash was cleared for TKOF. No reply, no movement of the aircraft.
- It rapidly became apparent that the TWR freq was inop, both primary and secondary. (Long tech story, now resolved. Suffice to say it was inop, but in the critical few moments of the incident, no-one knew why.)
- All other TWR freqs (SMC x 2, Clearance Delivery, spare VHF) attempted to call both a/c, no result.
- The light signal to vacate the runway was given to the Dash - no action resulted.
- The 747 appeared out of the murk at the minima.
- The light signal to go around was given to the 747.
- The 747 went around, just before crossing the landing threshold.
Subsequently, the crews of both the Dash and the 747 said they never looked for nor saw the light signals.
The 747 crew said they did not see the Dash on the runway and went around only because they didn't have a landing clearance.
Which makes being cleared to land when the runway is not clear and you are not #1 (a la USA and, apparently, CDG) aviation safety b u l l s h i t.
We were so close to a LA DC10/Metro tragedy ....
If our outdated procedures saved 300 people and two aircraft, then I for one am proud of and thankful for them. As, I suspect, are the two crews. And their pax, if they know about what nearly happened to them.
AA
Last edited by Ausatco; 15th Feb 2004 at 18:42.
For crying out loud, what's the problem?
Firstly, it is a requirement to land with a clearance. No, ifs, buts, maybes or questions as to the logic of that. IT IS A RULE!! There is no room to apply "common sense" and that's for everyone's protection. If you don't like it, make a submission to the Minister of Transport. Who knows what may happen?
OK, now I've vented my spleen, CAT III minima for QF aircraft are as low as 20' HAT. From that position the wheels will generally touch the ground while the aircraft is conducting an automatic go-around. Is this safe?? You betcha. It's been tested - and done - so many times it's routine, day-to-day. If an aircraft conducts a go-around from 20' due to Wx does it make the paper?? Do Wayne Swann and Bob Katter have a hissy fit?
During base training aircraft...gasp...touch down...take half the runway to reconfigure and...shock horror, become airborne again. I thought I was going to die when I did mine....give me a break.
I can forgive Wayne Swann and Bob Katter but for pilots to be questioning the need for a landing clearance and the Captain's response to a lack of that clearance, really makes me wonder.
Firstly, it is a requirement to land with a clearance. No, ifs, buts, maybes or questions as to the logic of that. IT IS A RULE!! There is no room to apply "common sense" and that's for everyone's protection. If you don't like it, make a submission to the Minister of Transport. Who knows what may happen?
OK, now I've vented my spleen, CAT III minima for QF aircraft are as low as 20' HAT. From that position the wheels will generally touch the ground while the aircraft is conducting an automatic go-around. Is this safe?? You betcha. It's been tested - and done - so many times it's routine, day-to-day. If an aircraft conducts a go-around from 20' due to Wx does it make the paper?? Do Wayne Swann and Bob Katter have a hissy fit?
During base training aircraft...gasp...touch down...take half the runway to reconfigure and...shock horror, become airborne again. I thought I was going to die when I did mine....give me a break.
I can forgive Wayne Swann and Bob Katter but for pilots to be questioning the need for a landing clearance and the Captain's response to a lack of that clearance, really makes me wonder.
Last edited by DirectAnywhere; 15th Feb 2004 at 18:26.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting comments here. first of all, credit where credit is due; congratulations Ralph the Bong, beautifully said!
Let's take the givens out of the equation, the chief one being that two politicians were on board, so any opportunity to get their mugs on TV would be gleefully accepted. Secondly, the standard of journalism involved has been correctly mocked by everybody here; it will ever be thus I'm afraid.
Now as to the question of landing clearances, yes, we have different standards to the US, and I don't claim to know the finer points of their system. If it doesn't take into account the situation that Ausatco described, then forget it, but I find it hard to believe that given the extremes of weather they have over there this isn't taken into account in their regulations? Lots more knowledgeable people around than I on this one.
But in a CAVOK situation where an RPT jet is aware of all tower conversations, watches a departing aircraft get airborne, knows that no other aircraft has been cleared to enter the runway, has a full view of the runway ahead and suddenly can't get a word in, I find it extremely difficult to accept Amos2's view that the pilot's licence would be at risk by landing without a clearance. The final decision is the pilot's if safety is concerned; yes, you are only cleared to the runway threshold if a landing clearance is not issued, but any pilot who couldn't successfully argue that in those conditions landing was safer than going around would not be worth his chops, and most tower controllers would agree.
Direct Anywhere, your argument accepts as a given that every rule is set in stone, no ifs buts or maybes. Sorry, as a twenty year tower controller I just don't agree. That may apply in enroute control where everything is done by the book, but tower controllers all over the world will tell you that without commonsense aviation would come to a grinding halt.
Let's forget the furphy of the soccer watching going on, this is a situation that just happens every now and then, especially in procedural towers where more airspace and more talking is involved. Standard procedure as every pilot and controller knows is for the pilot to land then call short final and get a landing clearance. Commonsense must be allowed to prevail in certain circumstances.
And EVERYBODY on this forum should be emailing the editor of the Sunday Mail and telling him what a disgrace to journalism both he and the journalist concerned are. Err, send him the link to this thread too.
Let's take the givens out of the equation, the chief one being that two politicians were on board, so any opportunity to get their mugs on TV would be gleefully accepted. Secondly, the standard of journalism involved has been correctly mocked by everybody here; it will ever be thus I'm afraid.
Now as to the question of landing clearances, yes, we have different standards to the US, and I don't claim to know the finer points of their system. If it doesn't take into account the situation that Ausatco described, then forget it, but I find it hard to believe that given the extremes of weather they have over there this isn't taken into account in their regulations? Lots more knowledgeable people around than I on this one.
But in a CAVOK situation where an RPT jet is aware of all tower conversations, watches a departing aircraft get airborne, knows that no other aircraft has been cleared to enter the runway, has a full view of the runway ahead and suddenly can't get a word in, I find it extremely difficult to accept Amos2's view that the pilot's licence would be at risk by landing without a clearance. The final decision is the pilot's if safety is concerned; yes, you are only cleared to the runway threshold if a landing clearance is not issued, but any pilot who couldn't successfully argue that in those conditions landing was safer than going around would not be worth his chops, and most tower controllers would agree.
Direct Anywhere, your argument accepts as a given that every rule is set in stone, no ifs buts or maybes. Sorry, as a twenty year tower controller I just don't agree. That may apply in enroute control where everything is done by the book, but tower controllers all over the world will tell you that without commonsense aviation would come to a grinding halt.
Let's forget the furphy of the soccer watching going on, this is a situation that just happens every now and then, especially in procedural towers where more airspace and more talking is involved. Standard procedure as every pilot and controller knows is for the pilot to land then call short final and get a landing clearance. Commonsense must be allowed to prevail in certain circumstances.
And EVERYBODY on this forum should be emailing the editor of the Sunday Mail and telling him what a disgrace to journalism both he and the journalist concerned are. Err, send him the link to this thread too.
Sorry if I'm getting a bit off the subject, but if we're going to start going on about how great the procedures are overseas, then I hardly think a DUAL-LANGUAGE airport such as CDG is exactly world's best practice! I've been in there a few times and it is a disaster waiting to happen. Oh, that's right, it has: ask the crew of the Streamline Aviation Shorts 330 who "met" the Air Liberte MD-83 on rwy 27 one night after instructions were issued in French and English. Well, you can't ask the F/O... he died....
I'm a little tired of people going on about how great overseas systems are and how backward, how last-century, we are here. Whether it's NAS or landing clearances, I happen to think we've got it pretty right in this country (well, pre Nov 27). Perhaps the rest of the world should take a good look at us.
I'm a little tired of people going on about how great overseas systems are and how backward, how last-century, we are here. Whether it's NAS or landing clearances, I happen to think we've got it pretty right in this country (well, pre Nov 27). Perhaps the rest of the world should take a good look at us.
Last edited by Ushuaia; 15th Feb 2004 at 20:07.
Binoculars, agreed, there are times when it's necessary, and I emphasise, necessary, to apply common sense if the rules don't give appropriate guidance. If I had an uncontrollable fire, could determine the runway was clear and didn't have a landing clearance then yes, I would land. A situation like this, however, is simply not one of those times.
Several options were available and, in accordance with the rules and the airline's SOPs, the Captain chose the correct one...based on the assumption of course that the reports of what happened are correct. To have done otherwise would have the left the individuals concerned open to all sorts of repercussions.
Several options were available and, in accordance with the rules and the airline's SOPs, the Captain chose the correct one...based on the assumption of course that the reports of what happened are correct. To have done otherwise would have the left the individuals concerned open to all sorts of repercussions.
Last edited by DirectAnywhere; 15th Feb 2004 at 19:35.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Around the traps...
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Katter is a !
I witnessed him having a tantrum after he had just been kicked off a departing dash 8 for abusing another politition who was on board.
Further to that display of arrogance, his secretary (I think?) carried his rather large bags to his car while he carried only his briefcase and that stupid hat.
!I witnessed him having a tantrum after he had just been kicked off a departing dash 8 for abusing another politition who was on board.
Further to that display of arrogance, his secretary (I think?) carried his rather large bags to his car while he carried only his briefcase and that stupid hat.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Until now, I've (obviously) refrained from comment, however without full knowledge of this particular "press release", I'd like to make the following observations.
(I) It's a brave man who lands (esp at a "Primary Airport"...is that terminology still in use?), without having received a landing clearance.
(ii) A go-around is an option ALWAYS available to ALL pilots - unfortunately not enough of us exercise it often enough!!
(iii) A go-around is NOT an "emergency" or "abnormal" procedure. The reality is, ATC are generally quite "conservative" with separation standards, so as not to frighten the "beegeezus" out of the pilots!!
The people who cite the "Cleared to land, as No3 (or whatever)" are generally talking about dual runway ops (1 R/W for landing, and another for take-off), eg, "Cleared to land as No 3."
However, the "Go-around" option is ALWAYS there - at ANY phase during the approach.
(iv) Boeing tell us that a go-around is available even after touch down, as long as the thrust reversers have not been selected. So even IF (according to 10 gallon Bob) the "rubber" had made contact, a go-around was still an option.
And last but not least...........did anyone suffer any injury from this?
Of course the answer is "No" (except Bob Katter apparently..who sh!t his undies, and made an apparent national fool of himself). "I'll be demanding an investigation into why pilots are allowed to make go-arounds!!"
(I) It's a brave man who lands (esp at a "Primary Airport"...is that terminology still in use?), without having received a landing clearance.
(ii) A go-around is an option ALWAYS available to ALL pilots - unfortunately not enough of us exercise it often enough!!
(iii) A go-around is NOT an "emergency" or "abnormal" procedure. The reality is, ATC are generally quite "conservative" with separation standards, so as not to frighten the "beegeezus" out of the pilots!!
The people who cite the "Cleared to land, as No3 (or whatever)" are generally talking about dual runway ops (1 R/W for landing, and another for take-off), eg, "Cleared to land as No 3."
However, the "Go-around" option is ALWAYS there - at ANY phase during the approach.
(iv) Boeing tell us that a go-around is available even after touch down, as long as the thrust reversers have not been selected. So even IF (according to 10 gallon Bob) the "rubber" had made contact, a go-around was still an option.
And last but not least...........did anyone suffer any injury from this?
Of course the answer is "No" (except Bob Katter apparently..who sh!t his undies, and made an apparent national fool of himself). "I'll be demanding an investigation into why pilots are allowed to make go-arounds!!"